>For example, whilst I like the Unix idiom of one command to do one thing
>well, I do find myself doing a series of picks, marks, and scans to
>whittle down emails whereas having a consistent, planned, notation that
>can be used wherever a message number can be given would lessen the
>iterations a lot.  `seq=-3' is nice, but I can't do `seq:-3:2', for
>example.  And overall it's warty, so warty no one replied to my

Urrk.  Okay, I re-read that email and I remember why I never replied.

First ... was there a question in there?  Okay, the only one I could
find was asking if mh-sequence(5) should be in section 7 instead.

Secondly ... that message is kind of dense.  Okay, I guess the main
point of that is suggesting that the way certain sequences make things
go backwards is kind of confusing (also, "all" violates "all" of the
rules).  Was the idea there to just be a cri de coeur or asking for
suggestions?  I only ask because I didn't know you WANTED a reply. :-)



Reply via email to